Improving the Sustainability of the Manufacturing Process by Constructively Optimizing the Parts “Transition Type Fitting”
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper by I. Rotaru et al. presents a sustainability analysis of different types of transition type fittings and proposes a new one with better performance in terms of sustainability. The scope that the paper wants to pursuit is itself quite clear, but this work analyzes only some aspects that determine the overall sustainability of a process or product. The storyline from sustainability in manufacturing to the scientific results presented in the paper is rather fragmentary. Likewise, the presentation and discussion of the results is only partial. The results in terms of achieved improvement are not adequately compared with other results from the current state of the art technology, which would make the discussion of them more interesting to the scientific readership of the journal. For these reasons I do not find the paper to be suitable for publication in Sustainability. I have more specific comments for the authors to address:
Introduction: The introduction is too general compared to the problem that the paper aims to address. It does not add much value to a reader that wants to learn about the sustainability of transition type fittings, what kind of work that the literature has already done in terms of improving the process and reducing energy consumption or introducing new materials in this regard. From this introduction the reader should be able to understand where the paper adds value within this technological framework.
Figure 1 seems to belong more to a review paper. It should be removed and a Table with the essential information (essential to the scope of the paper) should be added instead. Then the reader can find out more from the referenced articles.
Table 1: Outer bush should be number 4 instead of 1 Figure 3: A process scheme should be added instead. Alternatively, the Figure should be removed. I don’t see any added value from using the current Figure compared to plain text in the paper (without figure)
Figure 4: If I understand it correctly: in the caption please add a note clarifying the 1, 2, 3 and 4 (column in the middle of the Figure) refer to Table 1
Line 153-154: More details regarding how the application and how the data have been obtained/calculated should be provided Line 216: “In terms of processing time, types 2 and 3 of inner bushings are the most sustainable…” as also shown in Table 3. However, Fig. 8 shows the least sustainability after overall assessment. I think the authors should be careful in the use of the term “sustainable” throughout the paper as an improper use generates confusion. Organizing the discussion in a different way, e.g.: “types 2 and 3 of inner bushings have the lowest processing time, …yet, sustainability is lower due to …, as shown in Fig. 8” would make things clearer. The same problem can clearly be seen in Line 234, where the authors say “Therefore, in order to achieve a model that is sustainable from a sustainable point of view…”. I suggest to vary with the use “optimal/best choice from the point of view of…”, or “…requires the lowest/the highest…” instead of “sustainable”, when the authors refer to specific properties and results that do not pertain to the assessment of overall sustainability throughout the paper.
Table 3: please add a significant digit to the cost of type 1 and type 4 inner bushings Table 5: Please fix the number of significant digits of the processing time for the different types of transition fitting, so that it is the same over the different types. Suggestion: rounding the time to seconds (i.e. 53, 49, 53, 71 s) may be enough for the comparison. The same comment applies to Table 6 (including cost in Euro, e.g. 0.2 vs 03), Figure 12 and Figure 13.
Caption of Fig. 13-Processing cost (page 14): It should read “Figure 13” instead of “Figure 12”. All the following Figure numbering should be fixed accordingly (pages 15-17). The same comment applies to how they are referenced in the text, see for example line 377, which refer to “Figure 13” instead of “Figure 14”.
Lines 406-411: “…type 1 has the most complicated geometry of the inner bush, numerous variations of angles and diameters, …” why taking the most complicated geometry as a reference should necessarily be the right comparison? At least this should be demonstrated. Here the authors want to compare the mechanical strength, so a comparison with the (demonstrated) weakest/strongest options should be performed instead.
Lines 436 and 441: “force of” is in Italic. Please fix it.
Line 444: 25800 N is not in italic as previously done. The text should be consistent.
Line 448: “very high tensile forces”. What is very high? Is the difference acceptable? Discussion of what reference strength the proposed can be compared with (from the literature) should be included.
Line 450-451: “Sustainability” cannot be concluded based on mechanical analyses. I suggest the authors just mention here that the model is mechanically suited for the purpose. Other parts of the paper can conclude on sustainability.
Lines 458-461: The sentence is unclear and should be rephrased. A reduced manufacturing time does not prove sustainability itself.
Conclusion: it is lacking an overall comparison with state of the art technology in terms of sustainable manufacturing improvements. Meaning: how much the reported improvement obtained with the alternative transition fitting is better than what has been achieved in similar work? What improvement can be expected by implementing other similar solutions? Is this the optimal solution or just a good alternative (the best over the other 4 types, but not necessarily the best solution). The solution space should be explored/analyzed more exhaustively.
References: the formatting of some references appears to be different. Please fix that if applicable (maybe it is just due to the pdf rendition).
Furthermore, I believe that the clarity/readability of the paper would benefit from an extensive English.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We much appreciate your careful review. To improve the article, we have revised the article according to your suggestions. The changes and modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted.
Comment 1: Introduction: The introduction is too general compared to the problem that the paper aims to address. It does not add much value to a reader that wants to learn about the sustainability of transition type fittings, what kind of work that the literature has already done in terms of improving the process and reducing energy consumption or introducing new materials in this regard. From this introduction the reader should be able to understand where the paper adds value within this technological framework.
Answer: The introductory part was completed, and other bibliographic resources were added
Comment 2: Figure 1 seems to belong more to a review paper. It should be removed and a Table with the essential information (essential to the scope of the paper) should be added instead. Then the reader can find out more from the referenced articles.
Answer: Figure 1 was eliminated and the useful information was systematized in Table 1
Comment 3: Table 1: Outer bush should be number 4 instead of 1 Figure 3: A process scheme should be added instead. Alternatively, the Figure should be removed. I don’t see any added value from using the current Figure compared to plain text in the paper (without figure)
Answer: Table 1 has been modified (current Table 2) and also Figure 3 (current Figure 2)
Comment 4: Figure 4: If I understand it correctly: in the caption please add a note clarifying the 1, 2, 3 and 4 (column in the middle of the Figure) refer to Table 1
Answer: Figure 4 has been completed (current Figure 3)
Comment 5: Line 153-154: More details regarding how the application and how the data have been obtained/calculated should be provided Line 216: “In terms of processing time, types 2 and 3 of inner bushings are the most sustainable…” as also shown in Table 3. However, Fig. 8 shows the least sustainability after overall assessment. I think the authors should be careful in the use of the term “sustainable” throughout the paper as an improper use generates confusion. Organizing the discussion in a different way, e.g.: “types 2 and 3 of inner bushings have the lowest processing time, …yet, sustainability is lower due to …, as shown in Fig. 8” would make things clearer. The same problem can clearly be seen in Line 234, where the authors say “Therefore, in order to achieve a model that is sustainable from a sustainable point of view…”. I suggest to vary with the use “optimal/best choice from the point of view of…”, or “…requires the lowest/the highest…” instead of “sustainable”, when the authors refer to specific properties and results that do not pertain to the assessment of overall sustainability throughout the paper.
Answer: We have corrected the data in Table 3 (current 4), we remade figure 8 (current 7) and modified the text according to your suggestions
Comment 6: Table 3: please add a significant digit to the cost of type 1 and type 4 inner bushings Table 5: Please fix the number of significant digits of the processing time for the different types of transition fitting, so that it is the same over the different types. Suggestion: rounding the time to seconds (i.e. 53, 49, 53, 71 s) may be enough for the comparison. The same comment applies to Table 6 (including cost in Euro, e.g. 0.2 vs 03), Figure 12 and Figure 13.
Answer: We have corrected the data in Table 3 (current 4) and in Figure 12 (current 11); in the case of costs, no rounding can be done, because the values are close and it would not be possible to observe the differences.
Comment 7: Caption of Fig. 13-Processing cost (page 14): It should read “Figure 13” instead of “Figure 12”. All the following Figure numbering should be fixed accordingly (pages 15-17). The same comment applies to how they are referenced in the text, see for example line 377, which refer to “Figure 13” instead of “Figure 14”.
Answer: The numbering of the figures throughout the text was remade
Comment 8: Lines 406-411: “…type 1 has the most complicated geometry of the inner bush, numerous variations of angles and diameters, …” why taking the most complicated geometry as a reference should necessarily be the right comparison? At least this should be demonstrated. Here the authors want to compare the mechanical strength, so a comparison with the (demonstrated) weakest/strongest options should be performed instead.
Answer: We modified the text according to your observations
Comment 9: Lines 436 and 441: “force of” is in Italic. Please fix it.
Answer: We modified the text according to your observations
Comment 10: Line 444: 25800 N is not in italic as previously done. The text should be consistent.
Answer: We modified the text according to your observations
Comment 11: Line 448: “very high tensile forces”. What is very high? Is the difference acceptable? Discussion of what reference strength the proposed can be compared with (from the literature) should be included.
Answer: We modified the text according to your observations and we added the minimum value of the force, according to the specifications in the specialized literature.
Comment 12: Line 450-451: “Sustainability” cannot be concluded based on mechanical analyses. I suggest the authors just mention here that the model is mechanically suited for the purpose. Other parts of the paper can conclude on sustainability.
Answer: We modified the text according to your observations
Comment 13: Lines 458-461: The sentence is unclear and should be rephrased. A reduced manufacturing time does not prove sustainability itself.
Answer: We rewrote the phrase and added comments.
Comment 14: Conclusion: it is lacking an overall comparison with state of the art technology in terms of sustainable manufacturing improvements. Meaning: how much the reported improvement obtained with the alternative transition fitting is better than what has been achieved in similar work? What improvement can be expected by implementing other similar solutions? Is this the optimal solution or just a good alternative (the best over the other 4 types, but not necessarily the best solution). The solution space should be explored/analyzed more exhaustively.
Answer: We have completed the conclusions, according to your observations.
Comment 15: References: the formatting of some references appears to be different. Please fix that if applicable (maybe it is just due to the pdf rendition).
Answer: The references have been completed and written in the required format.
Please note that the changes was made with red colour in text.
Finally, we are very thankful to you for taking your valuable time to help us with this paper. Your insightful and constructive advice and recommendations are deeply appreciated.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the paper Improving the Sustainability of the Manufacturing Process by Constructively Optimizing the Parts "Transition Type Fitting” there are a few details, presented below, which require further attention by the authors.
Comments and suggestions
Do not underline the author’s name and email address
Introduction- Pay attention to the language:
-- e.g.: “…influences the processing of the point of view of sustainability.” I think is better: …influences the processing from sustainability point of view/ from point of view of sustainability.
- Line 58: insert “.” (full stop)
Results and discussions
- Attention to figure 8
- Line 185: Figure 8 must be formatted bold
- Line 303: Figure 1 or Figure 11 ??
- Line 415 : traction stress or tensile stress?? Tensile stress is the well-known term
- Line 418: reformulate the phrase: “…a displacement of 50 mm, Figure 13.”
References
Please, revise references to journal articles and books according to requirements from Instructions for Authors
For example:
-- in case of reference to a journal, year must be bold
-- after each reference insert “.” (full stop)
-- use the same font formatting
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We much appreciate your careful review. To improve the article, we have revised the article according to your suggestions. The changes and modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted.
Comments:
Introduction
- Pay attention to the language:
-- e.g.: “…influences the processing of the point of view of sustainability.” I think is better: …influences the processing from sustainability point of view/ from point of view of sustainability.
- Line 58: insert “.” (full stop)
Results and discussions
- Attention to figure 8
- Line 185: Figure 8 must be formatted bold
- Line 303: Figure 1 or Figure 11 ??
- Line 415 : traction stress or tensile stress?? Tensile stress is the well-known term
- Line 418: reformulate the phrase: “…a displacement of 50 mm, Figure 13.”
References
Please, revise references to journal articles and books according to requirements from Instructions for Authors
Answers:
We made all the suggested corrections;
We rewrote the bibliographic references;
We have completed the work with other information.
Please note that the changes was made with red colour in text.
Finally, we are very thankful to you for taking your valuable time to help us with this paper. Your insightful and constructive advice and recommendations are deeply appreciated.
Reviewer 3 Report
This research provided the sustainability analysis of 4 types of transition fittings. Base on the analysis, the author provided a new type of transition fitting which is more sustainable, and the cost has decreased from 0.77 Euro/part to 0.2 Euro/part with a good resist tensile stress. The manuscript has made a good case study; however, contributions and broader impact is unclear. The detailed comments are below:
This paper study the sustainability of four structures and proposed a new structure. Could you please give more details about the contribution and broader impact of this paper and the method? As shown in figure 5, this paper chose four types of structures, why do you choose these four structures in the beginning? For figure 1, do you think it is necessary to place the figure in the introduction part? The reader could locate the information from the citation paper. In figure 2, could you label the name of each part on the figure? In figure 6, I cannot find the cost expression of time, energy and costs. I think it is necessary to explain how the costs are obtained. Could you revise the figure 6? And the x-axis does not have a single variable. I do not see the difference between type 2 and type 3 in figure 7? I could only see the difference in color. In table 3, why type 1 and type 4 have the same processing time and cost? How did you get Figure 6, 8, and 10 (sustainability with respect to time, energy and costs)? Could you add FEM analysis to the other three types? Some figures need to have a better resolution. Some figures need to be reshaped. Delete line 104-105? (Same as Figure 3) The subtitle under section 3 was all indicated as 3.1, hard to locate. Font and size are not standardized. This paper has a few spelling mistakes, and some labels are covered in figures. For example, Figure 6 is not clearly labeled.Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We much appreciate your careful review. To improve the article, we have revised the article according to your suggestions. The changes and modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted.
Comments: This paper study the sustainability of four structures and proposed a new structure. Could you please give more details about the contribution and broader impact of this paper and the method? As shown in figure 5, this paper chose four types of structures, why do you choose these four structures in the beginning? For figure 1, do you think it is necessary to place the figure in the introduction part? The reader could locate the information from the citation paper. In figure 2, could you label the name of each part on the figure? In figure 6, I cannot find the cost expression of time, energy and costs. I think it is necessary to explain how the costs are obtained. Could you revise the figure 6? And the x-axis does not have a single variable. I do not see the difference between type 2 and type 3 in figure 7? I could only see the difference in color. In table 3, why type 1 and type 4 have the same processing time and cost? How did you get Figure 6, 8, and 10 (sustainability with respect to time, energy and costs)? Could you add FEM analysis to the other three types? Some figures need to have a better resolution. Some figures need to be reshaped. Delete line 104-105? (Same as Figure 3) The subtitle under section 3 was all indicated as 3.1, hard to locate. Font and size are not standardized. This paper has a few spelling mistakes, and some labels are covered in figures. For example, Figure 6 is not clearly labeled.
Answers:
The introduction was made, being made a highlighting of the contribution of the paper to scientific knowledge and technological development; The 4 types of fittings were chosen because they are the most used at present (the paper has been completed with details); The way of obtaining the costs was presented (lines 152 - 163); Figure 1 was eliminated and the useful information was systematized in Table 1; Figure 2 was modified (current Figure 1); Figure 7 was modified (current Figure 6); Figure 6, Figure 8 and Figure 10 was modified (current Figure 5, Figure 7 and Figure 9); FEM analysis was also added for the other types of fittings; The resolution of the figures has been improved; Lines 104-105 were deleted; The numbering of the subsections related to section 3 has been redone; We rewrote the phrase and remade the figures.Please note that the changes was made with red colour in text.
Finally, we are very thankful to you for taking your valuable time to help us with this paper. Your insightful and constructive advice and recommendations are deeply appreciated.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My previous comments have been addressed except for two:
-Figure 2 (which was Figure 3 in the previous version) has not been adequately modified. To qualify as a relevant figure, it should give schematic information/overview, which currently does not. I suggest that either of 2 options are considered by the authors: 1) the figure should schematically report the assembly including all the assembly steps as separate steps in the Figure; 2) removing the figure, as the information can be provided as text in the paper.
-The paper needs an extensive revision of English.
Additional comment:
-Line 19: "from 0.77 Euro/part to 0.2 Euro/part": 0.2 should be 0.20 to be consistent with the significant digits. This also applies to Figure 12, Table 7, Line 380 and 494.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We much appreciate your careful review. To improve the article, we have revised the article according to your suggestions. The changes and modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted.
We removed the figure 2 and we provided the information as text in the paper.
We made language corrections
We made the corrections in lines 19, 380 and 494
Finally, we are very thankful to you for taking your valuable time to help us with this paper. Your insightful and constructive advice and recommendations are deeply appreciated.
